“Some of us believe that Australia is already a form of republic under the Crown: a "crowned republic". Australia now enjoys all the desirable features of a republican government and a constitutional monarchy without any disadvantages of either system. Agitation for change is unnecessary, irrelevant, divisive and distracting.”

In this way many prominent constitutional monarchists and some prominent republicans, including judges , professors, senior lawyers and politicians use this terminology or consider it acceptable. They include John Howard, Michael Kirby, Tony Abbott, and Justice Ken Handley.

The timing could not be better, declared the editor of Sydney's Daily Telegaph on 29 April, 2011.

“Just as Prince William and Kate Middleton this week counted down the hours to tonight's royal wedding, a poll of Australians revealed that support for a republic had sunk to levels not known for 17 years. “This should subtract any widespread republican bitterness from tonight's vows.

“In a way, the republican question has now resolved into a perfect compromise.

“We get to have our independence - in all but name, Australia essentially functions as a republic - while still rejoicing in royal pageantry and ceremony.”

In an interview with Professor David Flint, Australia's 25th Prime Minister John Howard explains his use of the term "Crowned Republic."

Mr. Howard was speaking after delivering the Neville Bonner Oration on 5 November, 2009 to mark the tenth anniversary of the day when Australians rejected the model for what opponents described as a “politicians republic".

This model had been overwhelmingly approved by republican delegates at the 1998 Constitutional Convention. The very well endowed republican referendum campaign was led by Mr. Malcolm Turnbull and the Leader of the Opposition Kim Beazley, and supported by two thirds of the politicians and most of the main stream media.

But on the first Affirmation Day, 6 November 1999, Australians voted No nationally, in every state (a referendum must be approved nationally and in a majority of states) as well as in 72% of electorates. The vote could not have been clearer.

...keep on voting...

Since then the republican movement has adopted the policy famously enunciated by a EU politician: " The people must keep on voting until they get it right."

Both before and since 1999, republican politicians have successfully diverted millions of dollars taxpayers funds from water, education, hospitals and other needs into this folly, including the removal of the symbols of the Australian Crown. At the same time they are either unable or unwilling to indicate what precisely they are proposing both as to the constitution and for a new flag.

The term " Crowned Republic" is used by Australia's leading constitutional monarchists, including Justice Michael Kirby, John Howard, the Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott, and Justice Ken Handley, as an appropriate synonym for the Australian Federal Commonwealth under the Crown.

The report by Stephen Bates is balanced and fair notwithstanding the fact that The Guardian is a republican newspaper. It is however erroneous to say that in 1999 Australians voted “by a narrow margin” not to abandon the monarchy. It was a landslide. Had it been an election, the government would have won a majority never before seen in Australia. And the No vote prevailed in all states – the referendum also had to be won ina majority of them.

In any event Mr Bates thinks the visit could be propitious because the debate in both countries has stalled. And he notes that last month the opposition replaced its pro-republican leader Malcolm Turnbull with Tony Abbott, a man who says he will always be a monarchist.

...Prince Charles will be given a 'fair go', laments republican newspaper...

Mr. Bates also points out The Melbourne Age recently bemoaned: "It's highly likely that after the Queen's death the Australian ethos of the 'fair go' will probably deliver the next monarch."

He says New Zealand is unlikely to move before Australia, and committed republicans like former prime minister Jim Bolger think there is no need to hurry. This infuriates committed republican campaigners, but Mr. Bates has discovered there are only 800 in the movement.

...NZ already a crowned republic...

"I think there is a positive virtue in having a head of state 12,000 miles away," Noel Cox, professor of constitutional law at Auckland University of Technology and chairman of Monarchy New Zealand told The Guardian. "It means we don't have to worry about them and we effectively have a crowned republic already."

Thomas Flynn, described as Tony Abbott's successor as executive director of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy, said: "They can come here as often as they like. People say Australians don't like Prince Charles and wouldn't like Camilla, but if they got to know her, I think they'd change their mind - she likes a drink and a smoke, so I think she's very Australian in character."

And as republican Professor Geoff Craven once predicted were a referendum to be put on the only alternative to the rejected 1999 republican model –the result would be that Australians would live not only under the reign of King Charles III but also King William V. And that is a delightful prospect.

“It works and it's ours,” says Tony Abbott of the Australia’s Federal Commonwealth under the Crown, our Crowned Republic. Tony Abbott, now Her Majesty’s Leader of the Federal Opposition, was speaking to a meeting of young ACM last year.

The use of the term “crowned Republic” as a synonym for constitutional monarchy has been described as “very smart politics” by Birkenhead in a comment on a leading Canadian site. This has come just after Tony Abbott praised ACM for a ”brilliant marketing initiative”.

“Deep down we know Professor Flint has impeccable cavalier tastes and wants to maintain the royal kingdom and restore Australian knighthoods, but we also know as he does that you cannot go into a campaign shouting God is a monarchist,” writes Birkenhead . “Much better to say ‘a Crowned Republic, not a Politician's Republic’ and ruthlessly expose the latter for what it is.”

This provides a “glimpse of what a future campaign would look like,” writes Birkenhead in The Monarchist (12/11 )

This he says may partially explain why republican leaders are so eager to punt the whole matter into the long grass, saying they will not even consider the issue whilst Her Majesty sits on the throne. This he describes as“total white flag surrender.”